Why do private dealers not have to follow the same rules as licensed dealers?

If they did, then where would a guy who wants to shoot his wife right now get a gun? He's got a right to be armed, you know.

You don't think it's easy to buy a hot gun on the street in Milwaukee? Or to steal one? There's always a way to get one unless you're locked up.

Hell, buy a cap and ball revolver. No paperwork, pay cash, no record of it. No background check. No waiting period. Get a Colt Walker, 450 foot pounds of energy, that's approaching a .357 Magnum. Designed in 1846 and probably the most powerful handgun until the .357 came out ~1935. Reloading is slow, so get a couple of them. Even under Washington D.C.'s most repressive gun laws these were not considered "firearms."

I don't understand why anyone believes that someone who is determined to break one law will feel restrained by another law. Do you think Haughton's thought process was "I'd really like to kill that bitch, but I can't legally possess a gun and there's a sign up on the door saying I can't bring a gun in the spa!" ?

D-man, you certainly seem to know a lot about buying guns illegally. More I expect than someone who worked 20 year in auto sales and was studying to be a nurse would.

BTW congratulations on suggesting a gun that might actaully have been less effective than a knife in that situation. A black powder revolver? really? Oh wait, let's assume Haughton has training in loading and firing black powder revolvers (I mean who doesn't). Probably received it while he was learning the ins and outs of buying firearms on the street.

For the record, I don't think Haughton thought even once about whether or not he could legally buy a gun, which is all the more reason why the person selling the firearm should have to be sure of that fact themselves.

Francis Di Domizio wrote:D-man, you certainly seem to know a lot about buying guns illegally. More I expect than someone who worked 20 year in auto sales and was studying to be a nurse would.

BTW congratulations on suggesting a gun that might actaully have been less effective than a knife in that situation. A black powder revolver? really? Oh wait, let's assume Haughton has training in loading and firing black powder revolvers (I mean who doesn't). Probably received it while he was learning the ins and outs of buying firearms on the street.

For the record, I don't think Haughton thought even once about whether or not he could legally buy a gun, which is all the more reason why the person selling the firearm should have to be sure of that fact themselves.

What did I say about "buying a gun illegally" other than saying it can be done. That's hardly a "how-to guide."

There's nothing difficult about loading or firing a black powder gun. The instructions come with gun.

jman111 wrote:Maybe Dman is on to something.Why should we have all these laws if people are just gonna break 'em? What's the point?

The point isn't that people are going to break them. The point is that when the net result is that it only has a negative effect on those who aren't breaking the law (i.e., the law-abiding) then that's a law that ought to be questioned. A good law will have a negative effect on the law breaker, and little to no effect on the law-abiding. That's not the case with a lot of gun laws.

A good law will have a negative effect on the law breaker, and little to no effect on the law-abiding.

Interesting philosophical side-track here.

Your statement assumes that with regard to gun laws there exist two categories of citizens:

--Those having and using guns legally

--Those having and using them illegally, or those behaving illegally in other ways

A third category of citizens is being left out in this analysis: those choosing not to have and use guns. Their actions are completely legal.

A portion of that category of people believes the gun laws as they now stand are creating situations where highly undesirable behavior is being defined -- or redefined -- as legal. They are affected by the law, in that they may have lost friends or family members in situations they believe should not have had to happen. In other words, they believe a wrong was done -- and a wrong does not necessarily imply an illegality. It's a larger category.

The easiest examples to call up (for convenience, since we've already examined them) are those I've cited earlier in this discussion regarding the Florida stand-your-ground laws where shootings by gang members and by people overreacting wildly to perceived or imagined threats are able to use the law to escape prosecution (or conviction) for acts that, in words I've quoted earlier, at the end of the day did not have to happen --- irrevocable acts that resulted in loss of life where lives did not have to be lost.

So either your binary distinction is ignoring a logically (and realistically) possible category, or the laws in question are not good laws in the eyes of many perfectly conscientious and reasonable citizens. The latter alone, in a democracy, should result in re-examination and dialogue over the laws under consideration.

Or else if coaches were armed they could shoot the guns out of the hands of troubled players. Right?

In a way, this is less prolonged and brutal than beating someone to death with a baseball bat (Fitchburg), or burning your wife and kids deliberately in a house fire, but we are living in one sick society.

MERCER, Pa. (AP) — A man's handgun went off while he was holding it as he got into his truck in the parking lot of a western Pennsylvania gun store Saturday, and the shot killed his 7-year-old son, authorities said...

Investigators said Loughrey told them he didn't realize there was a bullet still in the chamber. "This happens all too often where people think the gun was empty," Lt. Eric Hermick told The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.